Ari v. Houston

Filing 8

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 5/10/2022. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2022)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROXANNE ATKA ARI,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

ORDER RE DISMISSAL

v.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3, 4
MONA HOUSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 22-cv-02515-JD

12
13

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, has filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

14

She has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

15

DISCUSSION

16

STANDARD OF REVIEW

17

Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek

18

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims

20

which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek

21

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se

22

pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th

23

Cir. 1990).

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the

25

claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed

26

factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

27

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

28

cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

1

the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations

2

omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

3

face.” Id. at 570. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face”

4

standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they

5

must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

6

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement

7

to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).

8
9
10

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by
the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was
committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

LEGAL CLAIMS

12

Plaintiff’s allegations are difficult to discern. She states that people stole her property

13

through forgery in 1973, she was illegally prosecuted and imprisoned, she has been forcibly

14

medicated and that there is an illegal conspiracy to overthrow the government. Plaintiff’s

15

allegations are frivolous and fail to state a claim. Because no amount of amendment would cure

16

the deficiencies of the complaint, this action is dismissed without leave to amend. If plaintiff

17

seeks to raise claims regarding the medical care or other treatment at her prison, she should file a

18

case in the Central District of California where she is incarcerated.
CONCLUSION

19
20

1. This action is DISMISSED without leave to amend for failure to state a claim and as

21

frivolous. Plaintiff’s motions (Dkt. Nos 3, 4) are DENIED.

22

2. The Clerk is requested to close this case.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated: May 10, 2022

25
26
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

27
28
2